Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday August 29, 2013 @07:48AM
from the whereas-the-current-taxi-cartels-are-just-groovy dept.

curtwoodward writes "Uber has just raised a monster investment round that valued the company at some $3.5 billion. And it looks like some of that cash will have to be earmarked for more legal expenses. The startup, which offers an easy-to-use mobile app for hailing "black car" sedans and other rides, is being sued in federal court over allegations that it's illegally skimming the tips paid to drivers. The lawsuit also claims that Uber is misclassifying its drivers as contractors, rather than employees. The upshot: If the federal judge certifies this as a national class action, Uber could be facing millions of dollars in potential damages. Oh, and the lawyer behind it? She's made a career out of suing companies for exactly these kind of violations."

So, this woman is very successful at class action suits. So, she has made millions of dollars herself, getting back pennies on the dollar for those who were actually harmed. And Uber is the claimed crook?

So you would rather bad companies just go completely free than compensate an attorney for his or her work? Class action suits are incredibly difficult to build, organize and execute. They are far more expensive to launch than a single suit and, often, the amount per-plaintiff is too small to justify an individual court case for each. So, instead, a lawyer or law firm foots the expense of a multi-year process in the hopes of returning a verdict that both pays them back plus profits. That seems completely reasonable to me.

For some reason people forget that our civil court is often the ONLY recourse we have against wrongdoing.

On the one hand, I recognize the importance of holding the companies liable. On the other hand, many of the class action suits are totally ridiculous and almost seem like extortion. I wonder...how often do class action suits just get totally dismissed or lose in court? It seems like every single one I hear about is either a victory for the class action, or (more often) the company settles (usually without admitting guilt). I never hear about the losers. Not sure if that's just because they don't get publici

So you would rather bad companies just go completely free than compensate an attorney for his or her work?

These lawsuits are not about the people "harmed". They are a deal between two crooks. the crook getting sued gets protection from their bad acts and the crook doing the suit gets cash. Those that were "harmed" get a coupon for future purchases.

The award to the actual members of the class should at least be non-insulting, and the lawyers should consider that when settling. A million to the lawyers and a coupon for 10% off of the next Shittee brand product for class members who clearly will never buy a Shittee brand product again is insulting. Even sending 1 dollar to each class member through the mail would be less insulting.

But how is Uber a "bad company". It sounds like they are completely sticking to their clearly laid out payment system. Shes simply arguing that their payment system is bad for 1) Taking a 10% cut of everything including tips. 2) Charging a $1 booking fee, 3) Not reimbursing for gas/maintenance.All the drivers understand the payment system and agree to it, if it wasn't a fair deal, people wouldn't be doing it. These people certainly aren't "employees" by any stretch of the imagination.

The point is that a) Uber is stealing tips from the drivers and needs to be punitively punished and the behavior stopped and b) there is so much malfeasance by companies doing this sort of thing that one can make a career out of stopping them from shafting working people. That is the outrage. And yes, the bad actor in this case is Uber and their stealing, not the people trying to set it aright. Dimwit.

I'm only seeing a one-sided story with no real story in here. And what I'm seeing sounds like huge lawyer bullshit and media bait.

Try this:

This new lawsuit mirrors the central claim in the Boston case, in which cab driver David Lavitman said Uber was effectively skimming half his 20 percent tip by taking a $1 booking fee and 10 percent of the fare. Liss-Riordan is also one of the attorneys in that case.

"Effectively"? It sounds like a $1 booking fee (operational fee per booking for the service provider) plus a percent of total service provided (i.e. miles). This means you get billed for using the service to get a cab ($1), plus they get a cut of the total transit mileage (10% fare). That seems fair and normal for this sort of business--I mean hell, pizza delive

"Effectively"? It sounds like a $1 booking fee (operational fee per booking for the service provider) plus a percent of total service provided (i.e. miles). This means you get billed for using the service to get a cab ($1), plus they get a cut of the total transit mileage (10% fare). That seems fair and normal for this sort of business--I mean hell, pizza delivery services charge a fucking delivery fee that doesn't go to the driver as a tip, because they have to idle and coordinate drivers while paying them a wage.

Pizza delivery places don't take the delivery charge out of the tip. That's in addition to the tip. If Uber added the "10% of fare" and "$1 booking fee" directly to the pre-tip amount owed by the passenger, then that would be fair. Making the cab driver pay for the privilidge of having the service target his company is inappropriate.

No, what I'm reading here is that you hail a cab and you're charged $1; they don't say, "This is a free service. You pay fare. You went 20 miles at $1/mile, that's $20" and then take a dollar from the cabbie. They're like, "You went $20 miles at $1/mile, also $1 for booking, that's $21" and then bill the cabbie $2 of his $20 from fare.

Why should I target CabCo drivers rather than CoCabber? Oh, because CabCo pays me a fee and CoCabber doesn't... I profit off them, they signed up and I maintain their i

...and the drivers who will be reclassified properly as employees and not have there tips stolen anymore. But hey, I guess we should do away with class actions so companies can continue to rip people off just so long as the amounts are small enough not to justify a regular lawsuit by individuals.

The drivers who I've had using Uber really are contractors - they generally work for another service or themselves and have been using Uber to "fill in the blanks" in their far more profitable direct business. They use their own equipment and their only tie to Uber is trip sourcing.

Note that this has nothing at all to do with stealing tips, which is just bad - however, Uber includes all gratuities in their pre-negotiated rate with the passengers, and presumably has a pre-negotiated rate with the drivers, so

<PrincessBride>I do not think it means what you think it means.</PrincessBride>

The "upshot" is simply a result, key outcome, or central point. The term, by itself, does not convey a value judgement by the person using it. Describing something as the upshot does not imply endorsement or an assessment of benefit to any party or to society as a whole; it merely indicates that what follows is the most important part of the story.

So, she has made millions of dollars herself, getting back pennies on the dollar for those who were actually harmed. And Uber is the claimed crook?

Even if we grant your implied premise - that class action suits are intrinsically unethical, or that there might have been a hypothetically-plausible way for the injured parties to recover more money - that doesn't get Uber off the hook. Both lawyer and company can, simultaneously, be (different flavours of) crooks.

I just looked up the word in order to harangue recent usage, and found out I was wrong. we teach contextual language acquisition, because that is how people normally learn. and when it goes horribly wrong we have a completely tangential conversation about whether this is good.

I think I will return to correcting people again. except for begging the question, because we lost that one years ago

Others have pointed out the punishment aspect of the fines and settlements. But it goes beyond that. Even if the person harmed gets 0.10 USD per 1 USD of settlement, there are other factors as well. Some examples include the psychological aspect of a person knowing somethings done on their behalf to stick to those that stuck it to them and the company being forced to disclose the suit on their financial reports; which impacts their potential to get good loans, attract investors, and form business partnershi

So, this woman is very successful at class action suits. So, she has made millions of dollars herself, getting back pennies on the dollar for those who were actually harmed. And Uber is the claimed crook?

Yes, because Uber actually is (it appears) a crook. Your mistake is in assuming that class action lawsuits are the proper vehicle for individuals to recover damages. They are not. They are, however, a marvelously effective way for a group of those individuals, who would otherwise be unable to mount a serious legal challenge, to collectively hit back in a meaningful (expensive to the respondent) way. In other words, the successful CA lawsuit against Uber will make them treat their employees fairly, instead o

The alternative is the company is never forced to pay, so yes that is clearly better.

If you want to see class action lawsuits where the harmed party gets the majority of the settlement then you take your money and fund such cases. You can take the risk of work for no pay, you can wait years for what might be a minimal or no return. Have at it, nothing stopping you.

Until you do that, this is the system we have. The only alternatives would be to allow companies to steal so long as the amounts were small enough or greatly expand the size of our government.

It is clearly better for a law firm to make loads of money and toss some scraps to the people actually harmed. Great counter point!

Well what is the alternative? Allow companies to abuse their customers and employees? Because that is exactly what would happen without some kind of balance of power.

is it right that the only winner in this situation are the lawyers? Of course not. But our legal system was created by lawyers so it is no surprise that it benefits lawyers most. The system needs fixed instead of abused. But until then at least there is some incentive for companies to not use abusive behavior.

Our Government has decreed that health insurance companies must pay out at least 85% of the premiums they collect towards their subscribers' benefits. perhaps we could reform tort law to require class-action attorneys to pay at least 85% of the settlements they negotiate to the class members?

Naw. That's just crazy talk. These lawyers are SERVING us. Their profit motive is above reproach.

Cronyism. The New Left, same as The Old left, just without the encumberances of restraint, and in league with the Old Guard Incumbent Right, who are desperate to save their current jobs.

Then there would be no class action lawsuits. You do understand that right?

Health insurance companies are notionally in the business of providing health insurance for profit. Class action lawsuits are not designed to provide restitution to members of the class, just to punish the party being sued and to prevent similar action in the future. This is very basic.

Class action lawsuits are not designed to provide restitution to members of the class, just to punish the party being sued and to prevent similar action in the future. This is very basic.

This is absolute nonsense. One of the primary aims of class action suits is to provide members of a class with a means to recover relatively small sums. Since the cost of any type of lawyer -- let alone depositions, sorting through evidence and paperwork, etc. -- would be prohibitively expensive even in small claims court, no one would ever try to bring a suit against a big corporation with a legal team unless they were going to win many thousands of dollars.

perhaps we could reform tort law to require class-action attorneys to pay at least 85% of the settlements they negotiate to the class members?

Would that lead to fewer class action suits? It seems likely, if you reduce the incentive for lawyers to make those suits. If it does lead to fewer class action suits, would that reduce their deterrence of bad behavior by companies? If it does reduce the deterrence effect, could that cost consumers overall more than they lose to class action lawyers today?

I'm not disagreeing with you, it's a good idea. But good ideas sometimes have unintended consequences. It's definitely worth an experiment, but the result could go either way.

Would that lead to fewer class action suits? It seems likely, if you reduce the incentive for lawyers to make those suits. If it does lead to fewer class action suits, would that reduce their deterrence of bad behavior by companies? If it does reduce the deterrence effect, could that cost consumers overall more than they lose to class action lawyers today?

The real problem is the disconnect between actual cost to perform the work and the percentage payment. Being paid a percentage is appropriate when the w

You forgot to include the New Right and Main Stream Libertarians, Capitalist when it helps them and Socialist when it helps them.

The truth is if you read the post, pretty much everyone is asking if there is a better way. So far I have not seen a single counter suggestion, besides maybe the implied eliminate class action lawsuits OR expand government.

Perhaps simplifying the legal process might empower individuals to take up their own cases more often, not that that would help in the case of class action.

You clearly do not understand how class actions work. 1000 people harmed for $100 is not worth litigating individually. Lump that together into a $100,000 suit and it is worth the time to do it. Plus most class actions are contingency lawyers get like 30%, if the plaintiffs lose they don't have to pay the attorneys.

Except that's usually not how it works in practice. If they win, the lawyers get actual real cash money, and the people harmed by the company's actions usually end up getting coupons for use at the business, or something equally stupid. Why would they want to use the business services if they are suing the business. The people the lawyer is defending should have to get paid in the same currency as the lawyer. If the lawyer gets money, so should the plaintiffs, if the plaintiffs get coupons for store services, so should the lawyers.

I guess I'm in the kiddie lawsuit group. The last class action settlement I received was a voucher for $1000 off my next purchase from General Motors. Granted I didn't have to lay out any cash or expend any effort, but as others have said, I had no plans to purchase another vehicle from them. The voucher also had an expiration date, so the settlement was of no value to me. Am I glad they got sued? Not really. I was never harmed. The truck was 20 years old at the time of the settlement. I think I go

Well duh, that's because the lawyer has done an awful lot of work contacting 1000 people, getting their stories, getting their testimony, collating all this information, and building a case. Building a legal case where you have only 1 or 2 people to talk to to figure out what was going on is hard enough, consider how much effort it needs when you need to contact thousands, and you can't use a for loop.

Add to that that these cases are generally far more risky than normal cases, as they're far easier to pick apart by the defence team, or to slowly chop away groups of people as being ineligible, and you get to a point where you see that actually, it's pretty reasonable for the lawyer to expect a decent return on their risk.

The bottom line though is that if you think that you could do this cheaper, and pass on more to the clients, and less to yourself, then you're welcome to do that. The fact that there are [b]lots[/b] of lawyers out there, and that it's a highly competitive market, yet none of them think that they can actually do that should tell you something about the situation.

Hahaha, I wish you were joking, seriously, I've been a member of maybe 20-30 different classes over the last 30 years or so and not once have I or any other member of a class that I've known ever been contacted by a lawyer for testimony. There's a notification letter and an award letter, that's it.

If they didnt make money I imagine theyd tell you to go learn law yourself, and handle your own case.

Its not like you do your job (assuming you are employed) for free, do you? Its not like her law firm FORCES you to use them-- I imagine people user her because she is good at law, and as we DO live in an ostensibly free market society, she is free to charge whatever she wants. Dont like it, dont use her services, but dont act like shes done something evil because shes (GASP) successful at what she does.

I have used Uber and find it to be a convenient service. I recognize the additional fees that go on my card and also tip the driver in cash. From what I read in the article, it sure looks like some sour grapes from the drivers. They agreed to the program and are now complaining that they aren't making enough. Seems like they should find another pimp.

The contract thing is likely not going to fly, if the drivers own their own equipment and set their own hours, I'm pretty sure they are contractors.

Skimming tips though? If that's true then Uber should be pounded into the ground, balls first. If there's a line on the receipt that says tip and it's not a tip, then it's straight up fraud, 100%. None of this "just tip cash" bullshit, why should riders be inconvenienced because of a company lying to take their money?

I do wonder about this. It seems to me that the parent company should at least get to pay a portion of the credit card fees out of the tip. At a big company it comes down to some flat rate per charge + a percentage of the total. Does anyone happen to know whether restaurants eat the credit card fees for a server's tip?

Why in the world are the credit card fees something that should be transferred to the individual employee when the company itself is a) purchasing the credit card processing service, and b) the primary benefactor from the transaction?

It's quite illegal for restaurants to deduct *anything* except taxes from a server's tips, and it should be. In most states, servers are getting paid approximately $2.50/hr based on the assumption that they'll make at least a certain percentage in tips (where I am, they automat

Absolutely. Tipping in cash is ridiculous when they're charging me for a tip on my card. That simply means that instead of the drivers being stolen from, I'm being stolen from, because they're charging me twice.

Uber isn't the restaurant. The Uber drivers are the restaurants that contract with a centralized booking and payment processing system that is Uber. You better believe the CC processing service for a restaurant is taking it's %age out of the entire CC transaction, be it line itemed for tax, tip or food.

Way to many companies are misclassifying there works as contractors or pushing them off to subs and yet controlling them like employees. So they can get it both ways of the control of employees with out the costs / responsibility's of having employees.

Way to many companies are misclassifying there works as contractors or pushing them off to subs and yet controlling them like employees. So they can get it both ways of the control of employees with out the costs / responsibility's of having employees.

You think unions actually care about the employees, or even care about fairness? I work at a company that is partially union and a few years ago we had a union come in to try and unionize the job that I do. They employed every dirty trick in the book, from harassing people at home, getting the NLRB to change the rules of the election (from counting yes votes as a percentage of all eligible employees to just out of the total votes cast), and, worst of all (and this makes my previous point all the more telling) they actually tried to sue the company for tampering with the election because the company publicized to the employees when the election was. Think about that. The union actually wanted as few people as possible (ie only their supporters) to vote. I would much rather trust the CEO of a company who only cares about their company than the union boss who only cares about his union. At least companies are honest when they screw over their employees. Unions just smile to your face while they take the money out of your wallet.

The union was IAM, which really makes no sense considering the industry I am in. But I have seen the problems caused by other unions such as ALPA, and have had first-hand stories told to me the problems that mixed-union shops cause, with different groups getting different deals and contracts, causing hostility and an unwillingness to work together because the person is in another union. And to be quite frank, the job I was doing at the time that was trying to be unionized isn't really one that demands the

LOL, where to begin with that line? You think companies are honest about that? And you think it feels any better when a screwing is in your face rather than behind your back?

Anywhere power is concentrated, there is potential for abuse. Companies are concentrations of power that lie, cheat, and steal, and get away with it, more often than any other powerful organizations I hear about. In America, upper management gets ridiculously large compensation packages. It's so bad we even have a term for CEO se

Look, of course there are corrupt and poorly run Unions. There are also corrupt and poorly run companies. You really need to be involved in your Union if you have one, don't assume anyone is just always looking out for your best interests.

That said, unless you happen to be an expert at contract negotiations, typically you need a Union or something like because they can afford to have actual experts who specialize in it, and you are better off negotiating with other employees on your side, the company is c

You think unions actually care about the employees, or even care about fairness?

It depends on the union, just like it depends on the company you work for. There are unions that are great to be a part of, and unions that are lousy to be a part of.

I would much rather trust the CEO of a company who only cares about their company than the union boss who only cares about his union.

So let me get this straight: You'd rather trust the CEO of your company, who has a financial incentive to screw you over with poor pay, benefits, etc, than a union boss who has to answer to you in the next election?

You think unions actually care about the employees, or even care about fairness?

The unions care about the union members because that's what they exist to do, and the union members are all employees. They're there to make sure that employees are treated fairly by management. They're there to get better pay, benefits, and working conditions for the employees.

Positions from shop steward on up are voted on democratically, as are contracts and strikes.

My mom works for the same company I do, and back around 10 years ago unions almost drove it out of business because everyone else had to give and give while the union would only take and take while the company was having financial trouble. It took a bankruptcy and a lot of layoffs/pay cuts to survive it, and my mom only kept her job because they forced someone into retirement/partial contracting and she took that person's job.

Well, obviously I don't know the details of this case but let me throw out a few things.

First, maybe she really was in a bad Union, bad Unions, bad workers and bad management can all make a business go out of business. Film at 11. In fact I want to start educating workers about this exactly this, what makes a good union vs. a bad one, what they can legitimately expect a union to do for them vs. what they should not expect.

But how certain are you that it was the Union, and only the Union, that caused all t

She wasn't union. There were 2 parts of the company that were union, the rest of the company wasn't. The non-union employees kept having to give up things while the union screamed "unfair" every time they were asked to give up anything. And for the record, the whole industry was struggling at the time, it wasn't just our company. The bankruptcy allowed a restructuring that even let the company merge with a competitor and now it is strong and stable.

OK, so revenue problems were industry wide, and they way the company restructured was to merge. So on the face of it, looks like there was simply over growth in the companies followed by basically downsizing. No one likes it but it happens union or not.

So who fared better from your observations, Union members or non-Union members? Also did salaries go back up after the restructure? How is the ratio of company profits to salary today vs. in the past?

So who fared better from your observations, Union members or non-Union members? Also did salaries go back up after the restructure? How is the ratio of company profits to salary today vs. in the past?

Unions. Salaries for many positions were cut, as were the total number of paid vacations (from 5 weeks down to 4). Healthcare is looking to take a hit as well next year, but that is more due to the ACA, and they are offering ways to offset that loss for next year. Don't know the ratio of profits to salary, but last year's profit sharing was the highest they ever paid out, and this year is on track to beat that profit. However, industry profits as a whole are growing as well. And the merger actually cam

I don't see how forcing the taxi drivers to pay union dues will increase their paychecks.

Contract worker versus employee has nothing to do with the workers, it has to do with the company trying to avoid employment taxes. If you are a contract worker, the employer does not have to pay employment tax on you, and the employer cannot set your hours worked in a day.

If you are a contract employee and your employer tries to control your hours, quietly make a phone call to the state/ federal tax authorities.

Yet, since we have a liberal, union happy president then such laws will never happen.

I assume you're using "liberal" in the US sense, i.e. to mean "left-wing"...

The same thing can be accomplished with labor laws, and not have to resort to adding the inefficiency of a union. The last thing we need is another entity with an outstretched hand taking for employees.

...which would make it ironic that you're advocating the government-created-and-enforced solution and criticising the "free market" one of one group of self-organised-people (i.e. unions) competing for their interests against another group of self-organised people (i.e. companies).

Liberals and democrats in the USA are not left wing Obama would be a Tory (wet/One nation) or center right politician in Europe.

Yes, I'm well aware of that personally.

Fact remains though, that AFAICT your average Republican (in the US party political sense) or right-winger thinks- or at least claims- that Obama is a "socialist". The fact they believe this shows how laughably skewed American politics are to the right. (They wouldn't know a real socialist if they hit them with a wet fish). But judgements of "left" and "right" in that situation are implicitly relative.

The complexity of laws pretty much assured that Uber would get in trouble at some point over something. The way they have to operate to avoid being considered taxicabs for legal purposes pretty much ensured that any way they profited would be an invitation to one suit or another.

I've used it twice. I thought they discouraged tips, suggesting the fee you paid was inclusive of everything? That's part of the appeal. A significant number of cabs in DC don't accept credit cards, and not long ago, it used to be a free-for-all catching cabs at Union Station after midnight, with cab drivers forcing riders to share cabs, refusing riders based on destination, etc. (all of which is illegal). Uber was great for that - call a black car, they pick you up, no waiting, no cash... home in 15 minutes. Yes, it was more expensive than a cab, but the service made it worthwhile.

I had a cabbie (very nice guy) in DC yesterday tell me that the city's skimming money off of the cabbies left and right to "pay for the credit card readers". Coming from a place with a decidedly-more free enterprise mindset with the cabs, what's the deal? Shouldn't the cabs only accept credit cards if they find it in their business interests to do so, and otherwise people can just pay cash? Honestly I had no idea that any cabbies *did* take plastic.

Well, it wouldn't surprise me. DC's cab industry is incredibly corrupt [washingtonpost.com]. I rarely take cabs anymore, but I recall there being an issue with the way the city set rates - it made it virtually impossible to know how much cash you might need (maybe it was the zone system, which they no longer use). Combine that with the difficulty of finding a cab in many areas, and the tendency of some drivers to refuse to take you to certain destinations, if all you had was a credit card, or not enough cash (or possibly not enough cash, given that you didn't really know how much the fare might be), it created enough of an inconvenience that some people (myself included) were willing to pay a premium for Uber simply to not have to deal with cash, among other things.

You are correct in that it was the zone system which caused all sorts of issues with fares. As you related, it was almost impossible for a person to determine ahead of time how much a fare would be because of that system.

Requiring a minimum standard of service (that might, for example, include having a card reader) is a reasonable trade for the right to provide a lucrative yet limited-availability service, since nobody can just "add one" to the number of cabs in the city to compete directly.

"not long ago, it used to be a free-for-all catching cabs at Union Station after midnight, with cab drivers forcing riders to share cabs, refusing riders based on destination, etc. (all of which is illegal)."

And it shouldn't be. That government in the US treats cabbies and their operations like government property, Public Utilities, etc. (all bullshit) puts these companies (and their drivers) into binds; everywhere this is done service is artificially degraded, segregated between areas (doesn't matter if there is demand to be met--such and such company bribed us off before you did)--e.g. a cabbie drops someone off 20 miles from a location and then can't pick someone up a mile away but has to drive like 15 back into his own zone: cabbies themselves have to work for a state-approved company so get raped in the *** for fees on a cab and dictated to and oh, they're also treated like contractors when really they're controlled employees (and the States and feds involved...know and have never done anything about it: to do so would destroy their licensing/control schemes).

I say let them force sharing: if you don't like it, pay more. That's how a market of people voluntarily doing work and offering services and goods is supposed to work. Frankly, it could make it cheaper: if not, people would go elsewhere (like Uber) rather than crying "it's not what I want, I should go to my legislator to have it made illegal", right? I for one...wouldn't mind splitting fare in a cab myself.

Depends on what else is going to be regulated. If the city is going to dictate fares to customers (and drivers), then customers should also expect a certain standard of service in return for that fare. If there are no guarantees on what kind of service I'm going to get, why is the service provider getting a guaranteed payment?

I say let them force sharing: if you don't like it, pay more.

I did - that's why I used Uber. Instead of standing in a crowd for 20 minutes with cabbies yelling destinations at hundreds of people who just got off a late train, I paid more and got

For the second part you responded to, I was responding to your complaint requiring "illegal forced sharing" and that, in general, that shouldn't be a complaint: it shouldn't be illegal. Besdies that though, there should be little to no required standard of service: if the standards don't meet expectations, just don't use them, as it goes WITH ALMOST ANY OTHER BUSINESS. The only things one could say should be exceptions are life-and-death, e.g. if the card isn't even legally allowed on the road (and for real

if the standards don't meet expectations, just don't use them, as it goes WITH ALMOST ANY OTHER BUSINESS.

But taxicabs aren't like other business. With any other business, you usually have a range of price points to choose from. With taxicabs, fares are set.

My point is that if the government is going to set the price, then it also makes sense for the government to set standards for the product. If you don't want such standards, fine, but you should also do away with the set pricing.

Bullshit. It doesn't make sense for the government to set standards because it doesn't make sense for the government to set fares because the real issue is, what the fuck is the government doing in the taxicab business in the first place, besides colluding with private interests unconstitutionally and duping co-conspirators in the courts to sign-off on it? I've ridden tons of cabs and if you call the cabis directly so the company doesn't know, they give LOWER fares.

The logic is fine. The IF statement is not evaluating whether it makes sense for the government to set prices, it is evaluating whether the government does set prices. Governments in many, many countries and cities do set prices. Given that fact, it does indeed make sense for them to also set standards.

"If it makes sense for the government to set prices" is an entirely different question.

The lawsuit also claims that Uber is misclassifying its drivers as contractors, rather than employees.

Well, are they contractors? You should now your own employment status.

Depending on what exactly the relationship between the drivers and the company will define a lot. If they're just a dispatcher for people who have signed up to be told they can pick someone up... you may well be a contractor.

I'm fairly sure cab drivers aren't generally considered employees, so unless you've been hired by these people, and they're doing your payroll deductions and the like, why would this be different?

Skimming tips is another issue, and could indicate all kinds of douchy-ness, but whether or not you're a contractor will depend entirely on what kind of relationship you have with them.

Uber has a *lot* of enemies in the established cab and limo industry. Don't take any lawsuit against them on face value. You can bet that the REAL impetus behind this lawsuit has nothing to do with tips or contracting.

Ok, so let's say this is some plot by traditional cab and limo companies. So what? If Uber is able to offer cheaper prices than the established cab and limo industry because it is stealing from its employees, that's about as fair competition as a legitimate used car business competing with a car theft ring. If the complaint is true, that means a traditional limo company pays drivers $8 per hour plus tips plus half the FICA tax, and Uber is out there paying people at what amounts to $4 per hour as an "independent contractor" plus no tips and none of the taxes. And those "independent contractors" are in fact the victims of that policy and should be the plaintiffs in the suit.

That's why we have court systems with class-action lawsuits and discovery and public records and a judge and possibly a jury to sort this thing out.

If the complaint is true, that means a traditional limo company pays drivers $8 per hour plus tips plus half the FICA tax, and Uber is out there paying people at what amounts to $4 per hour as an "independent contractor" plus no tips and none of the taxes. And those "independent contractors" are in fact the victims of that policy and should be the plaintiffs in the suit.

I helped run a company where we had a couple a couple graphic designers on staff who started as part-time contractors, but whose work duti

Licensing, if it is to exist at all in a free societ, should be about competence and not restricting entry to a profession. Otherwise it becomes the age old tool of corruption where you know people and give kickbacks to get a license.

They're registered as private "limos" (size unspecified in regulation) that are not unregulated like gypsy cabs but rather "differently regulated". For example, you can't hail a black car on the street. Uber just made it even easier to reserve one with very little notice than it is to hail a cab - that's the disruption they brought to the market.